Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42814974›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026

The intrinsic, instrumental, and symbolic values of sustaining childhood vaccination in conflict settings.

Majdi M Sabahelzain, Oliver Razum, Julie Leask, Diego S Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Majdi M SabahelzainSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6095-2172
Oliver RazumSchool of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1244-7649
Julie LeaskSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5095-1443
Diego S SilvaSydney Infectious Diseases Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8195-6404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization's Decision Framework for Vaccination in Acute Humanitarian Emergencies remains the principal global guide for vaccination prioritization and decision-making in crisis settings. However, it gives insufficient attention to sustaining vaccination as a matter of justice, as a means of upholding established human rights norms and the values that vaccines provide in these contexts. We argue that, if children living in conflict settings are to enjoy the same fundamental rights to life and health as children elsewhere, vaccination must be recognized as more than an emergency‑response intervention. We therefore propose a broader perspective to support guiding decisions to sustaining vaccination services that enhance the medium- and long-term resilience of health systems, and justice in conflict settings. We categorize the benefits and values of vaccination in conflict settings into three types: intrinsic, instrumental, and symbolic. We contend that vaccines are valuable in all three ways during humanitarian emergencies, and that this overlapping value means global health actors should prioritize sustaining vaccine delivery for children during conflicts.

Indexed as

Immunization ProgramsVaccinationChildDecision MakingHuman RightsHumansVaccinesWorld Health OrganizationVaccinesdecision-makingemergencyfragile and conflict settingsImmunization valuesjusticesustainvaccines

Identifiers

PMID42814974
PMCPMC13641545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.